Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

anyone can say that about fighters. Whitaker got a draw with an older Chavez. Delahoya beat an older Whitaker, got a gift with Tito. Lost easily to Hopkins by body punch. We can go down the line and diminish anyone, but Oscar had wins vs. elites regardless of excuses.

Lets say it was true that Benitez was not an ATG and Duran was past his prime and Cuevas and Hill not elite. That is still 4 great top fighters Hearns beat which Duran does not have, regardless of Dejesus and Macel and Buchanan mentioned. Next you will say Lampkin was better than Hearns.

Duran didn't even have as many guys of that level he beat who were that good that Hearns had on his resume. That is fact. That is why we have to follow the rules and then maybe have a rematch. Problem is many of Duran's loses with the elites were such easy fights that they never were demanded.
Duran beat one guy who was considered great, but Ray in June of 1980 was not great yet. My opinion was Ray was still green and on the second defense of his first title, and I am not saying this in some immature way to argue and act like a 10 year old. I have been saying this for 4 years on ESB as many on here will attest to.
And look how easy it is to diminish Hagler. Hagler beat an old Duran and a Hearns who had leg problems and was moving up in weight and broke his hand early. And Hagler lost to a rusty Leonard and struggled with an overrated Roldan and was knocked down Fact is a win is a win. This is what I mean by chaotic. The rules make things more clear. The excuses should be secondary to the result. If it is close have a rematch and clear it up. Did Duran and Leonard clear it up? Yes indeed. And Ray outclassed Duran. When the fight was stopped Ray was not showboating, he was hitting Duran to the body with Duran waving it off.

 

Whitaker beat chavez when chavez was the best p4p fighter with no blemishes. If you want to discredit the performance go ahead, most of this board ranks pernell above chavez anyways. I dont even need to discuss it, i have little doubt that pernell is superior between the two.

You need to end this nonsense of hearns beating better fighters than duran. Duran has better wins and a superior resume, if you disagree make a poll about it and ask for the opinion of others, lets see what the outcome is. 97% of people rank duran above hearns, you are in the TINY minority.

I dont mind seeing hagler get dimished, the only reason hes loved so much is because he's linked with duran and leonard. I would not be shocked at all if he would have lost to either hopkins, toney, kalambay or nunn. He might beat them head to head, but it wouldnt send a shocker if those guys or roy jones would beat him. He dominated a weak field of middleweights and fought 3 guys moving up in weight. He doesnt get criticised because people love the fab 4 era. Duran and Leonard are in my top 20 all time, hagler would barely crack my top 40.


Look i agree with you in some cases. This forum does have a lovefest for duran and he kind of is overrated. However, the manner in which you criticise him is lame. Compare duran to greats that are his own size like napoles, pernell, floyd, joe gans, etc.

I do think Jose Napoles would have done better against hearns than duran did, heck i wouldnt be shocked if napoles put hearn's chin in a box, but how they would compare head to head is irrelevant, napoles is greater than hearns for me in all time and p4p rankings.

 

No you are wrong, oscar took an ass whooping and got a 'win' so he could fight hopkins, anyone with an iq above 50 can tell you that. Now go do some more boxrec searching.:smoke

 

You still arguing with this dude, ush?

 

Hes got a tough chin

 

It's left him brain damaged by this point. :-(

 

Can you believe he actually thinks hearns has a better resume than duran. What duran accomplished from 1972-1980 was beyond amazing. A once in a generation fighter.

 

I actually can believe he thinks that, because he's been on about this topic for years. It never changes.

 

MAG is so ******ed people are taking ushvinder's side.

 

it's not an excuse it's a fact.

 

I said Hearns has greater wins at the top. Whether I meant it or not, I did not say Hearns has a better resume. Resume can be fights a fighter has even if they lost, and Duran fought everyone.

 

I have believed this for 30 years. Until I saw Roberto beat Wilfred or Hearns I would not buy the fact that he was the variable in his fights with Ray. I am sure he was not. Whether he comes more in shape in the second fight, the fact is Ray fought his fight in the first fight from the beginning of round one Put the fights side by side from the first seconds of round one. That was not Duran's decision what happened. I am sure he was thrilled Ray decided to fight him in the first fight.

 

being in shape is not and should not be an excuse. I heard this excuse about shape the first time right after the fight. The steak and gallon of water thing came out hours after the fight. That was the first thing. The inshape stuff was later. As for variable, Duran lost the second fight right from the beginning of the second fight. If wasn't as though he got tired and Ray then took over. The fighter who fights different than the first fight in style who changed the outcome was the variable. And if that fighter wins and wins big, then that speaks for itself. The third fight just emphasized that fact that Leonard dictacted who would win. He was the deciding factor, and he knows it. Even Duran knows it I am sure. You guys sort of underestimate Duran. Duran knows all this.

 

its not an excuse. He rightly gets criticised for the fight.

It still doesn't change that the only time they fought with Duran in shape, Duran won.

 

It can also be said Ray beat every elite he ever fought and Duran did not, and the times Ray fought his fight he won easily. Two times. Ray winning easily when he changes his style regardless of excuses is the main thing which shows he was the variable.